Democrat Lawmakers: Impeach Obama over Libya

I noted in my reading (but not blogging) American Thinker's essay, "Libya and the Left's Sickening Hypocrisy on the Use of Military Force," by Michael Filozof.

President Obama has just committed American forces to engage in acts of war against Moammar Qaddafi. Where are the protesters? Where are the accusations that Obama is a liar and a Nazi? Where are the groups of "artists" wishing death upon the "warmonger" Obama? Where are the cries for Obama's impeachment? There aren't any, and there won't be any, either.

Werll, Michael is wrong. There are some leftists true to their principles (even if I think they have lousy principles): "Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action."

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses. ...

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House.

It's an excellent point. My first post after UNSCR 1973 was that for President Obama to attack Libya would be an illegal war.

By any reasonable historical standard, in theory and in practice, any nation that carries out military actions in accordance with UNSCR 1973 is waging war upon Libya, or minimally against the Qaddafi-led part of Libya. ...

The United Nations has no authority to authorize any kind of use of United States forces. As a matter of legality, this resolution is worth less than the paper it is printed on. At best, it offers political cover only. But the UNSCR has no legal authority regarding employment of US forces.

What I want to know is this: Where is the United States Congress on waging war against Libya?

Only the Congress has the authority to declare [or authorize] war by the United States against Libya.

But doesn't the War Powers Act of 1973 grant the president the authority to conduct military operations for up to 60 days without prior Congressional approval? Yes, but the circumstances are very limited. The Act requires that the operations must be to respond to an actual attack by a foreign power or a serious, imminent threat. Otherwise, no can do. Libya meets neither test.

Since 1973, presidents of both parties have honored the War Powers Act only in the breach, following it in intent though not in letter. Serious Constitutional questions about the Act were raised by scholars and historians almost as soon as it became law, although there has never been a challenge in court.

Clearly though, Congress's intention in the Act is clear: non-emergency employment of the US military requires prior Congressional authorization - and the emergency concerned must directly be of US lives and territory. But as I explained earlier, Libya is a war "bereft of actual US national strategic interests."

Should President Obama be impeached over his usurpation of powers? Rep. Kucinich garnered no support for his inquiry, so it's not going to happen. Nor do I think that articles of impeachment should be drawn by the House. As I wrote before, the increasingly imperial executive is a trend that far predates Obama's inauguration.

Nonetheless, it is past time for the Congress to man up. Democrats and Republicans should jointly sponsor and pass, by veto-proof margin, legislationUthat writes into law at least the following:

1. No resolution by the united Nations or any other extra-national or foreign entity is of legal force superior to the US Constitution. Such an entity may not authorize the employment of US military combat power. Only the US Congress may authorize combat operations of US forces absent actual or imminent attack against American lives or territory.

2. Regarding Libya, the law should require explicitly that the president actually report to the Congress as a whole the justification for attacking Libya and actually request the Congress to authorize the attacks. If both of these are not accomplished by (insert deadline), then by law combat actions must cease by the expiration of that same deadline.

I am drawing a distinction between actually attacking Libya and supporting allied countries that are also doing so. I don't care what their internal procedures are for making war against Libya. I care about the requirements of the American republic. I see no Constitutional problem with the president ordering our military to provide logistics and other kinds of non-combat support.

I have not changed my position that the Libya war is one the United States should not be fighting in the first place. If the Congress decides to grow a spine then I think the wisdom of the war would have to be debated. That is exactly what no one is doing now.